Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's a leading question, case closed.
Let me ask the political correct crowd who defend this couple: If it is true what you're preaching about the deaf peoples's community and all, then it must be not ok to abort unborn children because they are deaf ? .... right ?
Seriously, abortion is up to the parents, doctors and other informed opinion; I doubt deafness would qualify, but what's abortion doing in this thread, how does it bear on the matter at hand?
BTW Ivanhoe, I think these parents were selfish and have romantic notions; for one thing, a child is safer if he can hear a car coming ...
Originally posted by KneverKnightWe are investigating the effects and consequenses of what you can call the "New Ideology".
That's a leading question, case closed.
Seriously, abortion is up to the parents, doctors and other informed opinion; I doubt deafness would qualify, but what's abortion doing in this thread, how does it bear on the matter at hand? ...[text shortened]... one thing, a child is [b]safer if he can hear a car coming ...[/b]
The question is very relevant for instance whether it is allowed for these parents to perform an abortion if the baby doesn't meet their expectations, meaning if the unborn child would be a healthy and hearing human being. Is it ok to perform an abortion on this perfectly healthy child and try again ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo idea what you are on about with the new ideology. Is there something hidden that I'm missing?
We are investigating the effects and consequenses of what you can call the "New Ideology".
The question is very relevant for instance whether it is allowed for these parents to perform an abortion if the baby doesn't meet their expectations, meaning if the unborn child would be a healthy and hearing human being. Is it ok to perform an abortion on this perfectly healthy child and try again ?
Who are "we'"?
Deaf couple have child, try to assure it's deaf too.
Originally posted by KneverKnightThe New Ideology is also known as the "Culture of Death".
No idea what you are on about with the new ideology. Is there something hidden that I'm missing?
Who are "we'"?
Deaf couple have child, try to assure it's deaf too.
The opposite is of course the "Culture of Life".
Try googling on both terms ....... interesting 🙂
How many hits do you think you will get ?
Originally posted by KneverKnightWhat I am asking with 2 is whether society has a right to label certain characteristics as negative or not. There are all kinds of bizaare people in the world; it's totally conceivable that two thalidomide babies would want theirs to be the same. Of course, the deaf sperm donor situation involves only selective breeding instead of adding chemicals to the mix.
1 Surgery may repair the eardrums, don't know if that's possible
2 Why? Hard to see anyone desiring that, in this case, the parents had a selfish, romantic desire.
3 No idea, don't know what you mean.
With 3, I mean to bring up the fact that it is illegal to bear children with your sibling because of the genetic risks. This is a form of eugenics. How is this different than this example?
Originally posted by ivanhoeDear Ivanhoe, of the 'Old Ideology,'
Your political correct bla bla stinks, Nemesio
Your arrogance is astounding. You claim that I am being 'politically
correct' because I refuse to label a deaf person as having a 'shortfall'
or 'genetically compromised' or 'disabled.' So much for a 'Culture of
Love,' or 'Culture of Life,' or whatever postive label you want to give
yourself.
If you want to look at a deaf person and say, 'Oh gee, another cripple,'
the label you deserve is 'bigot.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Dear Ivanhoe, of the 'Old Ideology,'
Your arrogance is astounding. You claim that I am being 'politically
correct' because I refuse to label a deaf person as having a 'shortfall'
or 'genetically compromised' or 'disabled.' So much for a 'Culture of
Love,' or 'Culture of Life,' or whatever postive label you want to give
yourself.
...[text shortened]... af person and say, 'Oh gee, another cripple,'
the label you deserve is 'bigot.'
Nemesio
The way you can twist my words is unbelievable. The need for you to label them in a very negative way is very sad indeed.
Yes Nemesio, I am an evil person ...... 😳
Originally posted by ivanhoeLet's review, shall we?
The way you can twist my words is unbelievable. The need for you to label them in a very negative way is very sad indeed.
Yes Nemesio, I am an evil person ...... 😳
I said, 'Born-deaf people do not consider that they have a 'shortfall,'
a genetic 'defect,' or are 'suffering.''
You said, 'Your political correct bla bla stinks.'
Either you accept what I said or your don't. Your answer explicitly
states your position by rejecting mine.
This makes you a bigot. There is no word twisting going on.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is your problem pcaspian:
*Born-deaf people do not consider that they have a 'shortfall.'
*Born-deaf people do not feel like they have a genetic 'defect.'
*Born-deaf people do not feel that they are 'suffering.'
Stop projecting your feelings about the nature of deafness on the born-deaf community.
Nemesio
Perhaps if you cared to debate the topic instead of the person, you wouldn't come across as such a tit. The topic is hand is whether it is ethical to engineer a person to be born deaf, not whether deaf persons are suffering. If you climbed off you self-rightious throne you may come to realise that. Now if you believe it is ethical to purposefully engineer a child to be born deaf, please state that and the reasoning for your opinion and actually get involved in the debate. If not, perhaps move on. Trolling surely is below you, no ?
pc
Perhaps if you cared to debate the topic instead of the person, you wouldn't come across as such a tit. The topic is hand is whether it is ethical to engineer a person to be born deaf, not whether deaf persons are suffering. If you climbed off you self-rightious throne you may come to realise that. Now if you believe it is ethical to purposefully engineer a child to be born deaf, please st ...[text shortened]... ly get involved in the debate. If not, perhaps move on. Trolling surely is below you, no ?Your very justification for objecting to 'genetic engineering' is because
pc[/b]
you opine that deaf people have a 'defect' and are 'suffering.' You
brought up these terms; I merely responded to them.
As deaf people themselves (and, hell, they ought to know) refute
these claims, your argument falls flat.
Do you think it is wrong for infertile couples to choose sperm and egg
donors from athletes or geniuses because it is 'engineering?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Your very justification for objecting to 'genetic engineering' is because
you opine that deaf people ...
Do you think it is wrong for infertile couples to choose sperm and egg
donors from athletes or geniuses because it is 'engineering?'
Nemesio
PCaspian:
Now if you believe it is ethical to purposefully engineer a child to be born deaf, please state that and the reasoning for your opinion and actually get involved in the debate
Thanks for confirming my belief, without BBarr you dimwits truely are useless. 😉
Originally posted by pcaspianYou are not nearly the master of dodging and spinning you think you
Thanks for confirming my belief, without BBarr you dimwits truely are useless. 😉
are, pcaspian. And, for someone who was complaining about my
being 'a tit,' you are quite the hypocrite!
If a person is going to be allowed to select amongst sperm and
egg donors for athleticism or intelligence, I do not see an argument
against selecting for deafness (which is not a 'defect' or 'shortcoming'😉.
This is not 'genetic engineering' (i.e., going into a gamete and
manipulating raw data).
So, I would ask you this: do you find it unethical to choose for
athleticism or intelligence?
Nemesio
I think part of the problem is that certain individuals do not want society telling them what is a genetic defect and what is not. These people want to give their offspring a genetic characteristic that they themselves have and that they do not feel is in any way a loss or disability.
Now, at what point can society step in and tell such people that they wrong? Since there are incest laws, society has some leeway to tell people who they can choose as the other parent based on genetic issues. If a brother and sister decided to marry based on some religious conviction and saw any genetic abnormalities that came up as gifts from God, it would still be illegal. Right?
I don't want to say that in this specific case these people are wrong, though I do lean in that direction. However, there is a precedent being set which we should think about in terms of the bigger picture. Can parents choose to give their children schizophrenia? What can't parents choose to give their kids via this method?
Originally posted by Nemesiodeafness (which is not a 'defect' or 'shortcoming'😉
You are not nearly the master of dodging and spinning you think you
are, pcaspian. And, for someone who was complaining about my
being 'a tit,' you are quite the hypocrite!
If a person is going to be allowed to select amongst sperm and
egg donors for athleticism or intelligence, I do not see an argument
against selecting for deafness (which is not ...[text shortened]... ask you this: do you find it unethical to choose for
athleticism or intelligence?
Nemesio
That is a matter of opinion. Some deaf people were appalled by what happened in this case according to the article.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd that is fine. They can choose to have (optimize their chances
That is a matter of opinion. Some deaf people were appalled by what happened in this case according to the article.
for having) a child with hearing.
You posted about laws that 'restrict' in another thread recently. If
being born-deaf is an 'ambiguous' trait (i.e., some born-deaf people
believe it is a positive part of their identity while others think of it
as a 'handicap'😉, then I think one should err on the side of permissibility.
As for the incest comparison; incest laws have been extant long before
anyone realized a correlation between 'handicaps' and children from incestous
unions. I believe that the laws against incest are socially motivated, not
genetically. That is, we as a society question the 'appropriateness' of a
brother and sister marriage -- people who grew up together in a special,
inimiatable way and, as such, have qualities which compromise their ability
to be married.
I don't find the argument against incest on the grounds of genetics is a
defensible one, since there are much higher rates of passing on diseases
in people with other conditions than in incestous relationships. A social one
is far more compelling, I think.
Nemesio